An Investigation into the Allegations thatEasdale Harbour is Unsafe and Improperly

Managed

November 2017

Easdale Island Community Hall, Easdale Island, Oban, PA34 4TBemail: secretary@easdale.org

website: www.easdale.orgA charitable company limited by guarantee

Registered in Scotland No. SC178838

Introduction

Early in 2017 the directors of Eilean Eisdeal received one complaint with respect tothe operation and management of Eilean Eisdeal. With the approval of EE's Board of Directors Duncan Smallman (Chair) attempted to address the complaints directly by writing to and meeting with the complainant. Gill Law (GL Consultancy) met with the complainant and two other invitees from the complainant in an attempt to mediate between the complainant and Eilean Eisdeal Directors.

On conclusion the meetings did not achieve reconciliation and agreement meaningan impasse was reached.

The meeting minutes and relevant correspondence are included in Appendices 1 and 11.

After further correspondence, a public meeting was held on 9 th May 2017 in Easdale Island Hall, minutes of which are in Appendix 2.

Whilst the complaints and concerns raised by the complainant were many fold Eilean Eisdeal requested the assistance of Tony Hill (Seafari) to assist with addressing allegations relating specifically to Easdale Harbour. This report does not attempt to ad-dress the allegations of collusion, coercion or that directors are unfit persons to be responsible for public funds.

Summary of actions

After further correspondence with the complainant following the public meeting, thecomplainant made direct contact to the government bodies and agencies listed inthe complainant’s letter (Appendix 3). Where appropriate, agencies sentrepresentatives to Easdale to investigate the allegations and report.

Eilean Eisdeal contacted their insurers, the NFU Mutual, to ensure that the harbour management met their criteria.

Conclusions

None of the allegations were supported by the government agencies that werecontacted by the complainant and no mandatory action was found to be required.To assist directors of Eilean Eisdeal with the operation of Easdale's Harbour someadvice was received and has been heeded. No mandatory action was required.There was no requirement for any action to be taken by EE.

NFU Mutual confirmed that they were satisfied that the harbour management as outlined met their criteria. The correspondence and criteria outlined can be found in Appendix 6.

For the past 10 months the limited time directors have been able to devote to moving the aims of Eilean Eisdeal forwards has been deflected towards addressing the issues above. Following the meeting in May, one director tendered

her resignation. Directors have noted that prior to this issue one or two residents were potentially considering assisting or joining EE’s board of directors. Subsequent to the public meeting these few potential volunteers have withdrawn.

Appendix 1 Minutes of meeting between Gill Law, the Complainant and others including the distancing of and withdrawal from the minutes by 'the others' who attended.

Appendix 2 Minutes of Public Meeting

Appendix 3 Letter from Mike Mackenzie EE directors stating his intended actions.

Appendix 4 Support document Mike Russell MSP to Mike Mackenzie's complaints

Appendix 5 Eilean Eisdeal's outside holding mooring – a review and consequences

Appendix 6 Correspondence with NFU Mutual, Eilean Eisdeal's insurers

Appendix 7 Correspondence Argyll & Bute Council – Councillor Julie MacKenzie

Appendix 8 Correspondence Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Appendix 9 Correspondence Marine Scotland

Appendix 10 Correspondence Health and Safety ExecutiveAppendix 11 Full email correspondence between Mike Mackenzie and Duncan Smallman (on behalf of Eilean Eisdeal)

Appendix 1 - Minutes of meeting between Gill Law, the Complainant and others includ-ing the distancing of and withdrawal from the minutes by the other attendees

Report to Easdale Community Trust following meeting Gill Law on behalf of EE directors with Mike Mackenzie

1/4/17

Meeting also joined by

- Donald Melville

- Keren Cafferty

The following issues/ concerns were raised by MM prior to DM and KC joining themeeting. However, when they did I summa-rised the issues raises so far by MMand asked them if they shared the concerns and if there was anything else theywished to add. They confirmed their agreement and did not really add anythingelse in relation to the harbour discussion.

Harbour issues;

1. Rationale behind the community purchase of the harbour was that it would bea community harbour for use primarily by the community

2. Legalities of charging - some harbour users have previously purchased boatswith moorings included in the sale

3. People in general reasonably happy with the idea of charging for harbour usage despite issue number 2 above but prices have gone up recently - no explanation - no consultation

4. No transparent pricing structure re harbour fees

5. Allocation of space in the harbour - perceived monopoly by a private business - no transparent Allocation/ Usage Policy or criteria

6. Condition of the original sale and purchase of the harbour was based on community usage and the requirement to maintain the harbour for community usage

7. Harbour originally laid with professionally designed and laid moorings - over time this has been replaced with pontoons/ moorings - not fit for purpose

8. Lack of clarity over whether chains have been replaced and if so, are they fit for purpose

9. Concerns pontoons not safe for winter usage - letter received advising they were not to be used

10. Decisions and actions re the harbour being taken by someone outwith the Board/linkage with Board member - independ-ence/ vested interest?

11. General housekeeping re harbour - trip hazards, old chain, old anchors

12. Harbour is a listed space - responsibility to maintain this

13. No published maintenance plan or anticipated costs

14. Is TH the official "harbour master" - what are the limits of this role/ reporting structure?

15. Concerns re insurance liability if an incident occurred and the community wasdeemed liable by a loss adjuster following an inspection of the harbour

16.Discussion needed re dormant Trading Co - as a vehicle for managing island assets including the harbour

17. No accessible Board Minutes to review to explain Board decision-making in relation to harbour decision-making and issues

Suggested measures to address above; (these were offered by MM as the solutions he would seek to the concerns raised)

1. Appoint a Marine Consultant to undertake a review of the harbour - maintenance and design

2. Publish a Harbour Charges Policy

3. Publish a Harbour Allocation/ Usage Policy

4. Replace pontoons/ moorings with original or equivalent design

5. Return harbour to a community harbour primarily for use by the community and not commercial business users

Please note – as part of the broader discussion re the above, no one present could provide an answer to where the funding should come from re the major renovations/ consultancy support/ title searches etc. that were being proposed.

Please also note – when asked no one volunteered to offer to join the Board to assist with the resolution of these issues.

Contribution from me

I largely recorded what was said and questioned/ challenged little as my purpose for being there was to record the issues that were being referred to.

Given this information, re which there was some interest, I suggested that there was the possibility that work and discussion re the harbour was being undertaken by the Board that the wider community were unaware of and that possibility the strength of feeling at present could have been avoided via better communication bythe Board and transparency. This was accepted to some extent.

Addendum

Gill Law sent copies of her minutes to those who attended the meeting for their approval prior to publication. Acknowledge-ment was only received from the maincomplainant.

Shortly following publication of the minutes to the directors of Eilean Eisdeal and prior to the following public meeting the fur-ther two persons who attended the meeting made representation to the directors of Eilean Eisdeal. Both stated that whilst they wished to express some concern about a lack of communication with the community in the form of a newsletter both ex-pressly distanced themselves from the majority of the minutes. The meeting had started at 1000 but both had been invited to attend the meeting from 1100. Both were only present for a short while. Both were unaware of what had previously been dis-cussed.

The directors of Eilean Eisdeal accepted the explanations.

Appendix 2 – Minutes of Public meeting

Easdale Community Meeting – Saturday 13 May 2017 – 10.00am, Easdale Hall

NOTE ONLY MINUTES FROM HARBOUR SECTION INCLUDED

In attendance

Duncan Smallman, Michelle MacFadyen, Jan Fraser, Iain MacDougall,

Jess Hill, Gill Law(LIP) Maria Carenduff(LIP), Racheal Stockton(CCF),

Willie Fairbairn, Jenny Smith, Alice Clayton, Ruth Barrett, Dughall

McLeod, Calum MacDonald, Lindsey Ferguson, Dave Munro, Don

Gillies, Alex MacRae, Tony Hill, Carolyn Perkins, Mike MacKenzie,

Voirrey Quillen, Donald Melville, Ghalia Asaid.

Welcome and Introductions

Gill Law (GL) opened the meeting with welcome and introductions.

GL ran through the previously circulated Agenda, noting the 4 areas of

information and discussion and highlighting who would lead on each

item and explaining why these items had been included in the Agenda.

2. Harbour Issues

Easdale Harbour – Gill explained that issues had been raised with

the Trust in recent months re Harbour H&S, financial management,

allocation of moorings and about previous correspondence issued

on behalf of the Trust and the role of Harbour Master.

GL asked if these concerns were widely shared or of anyone wished

to make any comment. Mike Mackenzie (MM) acknowledged

immediately that these concerns had been raised by him. Specifically,

health and safety, his concern about problems with marine facilities

and moorings and talked about Tony’s (Tony Hill – TH) input as

“Harbour Master”.

MM provided an example of a health and safety issue when he was

asked to move his boat from a holding mooring by TH.

TH explained that on that occasion strong winds were forecast and he

had advised Mike as a fellow user of the Harbour that the weather

was deteriorating and possibly he should consider moving his boat.

TH advised this was for the safety of the boat.

GL clarified that the “mooring was designed as a holding mooring” TH

was “not saying the mooring was inadequate he was offering “advice,

not a demand” “I didn’t say it was unsafe” (TH) Discussion then took

place re the use and quality of this mooring and TH advised that the

mooring had been inspected and was now a permanent mooring. TH

confirmed the costs in relation to this. MM advised he was happy the

mooring had been inspected but wanted an independent assessment

of the harbour and not a self-regulating, kangaroo court.

Tony Hill read out the statement below;

STATEMENT 1A recent complainant to Eilean Eisdeal raised issues of incompetence and mal administration of

Easdale Harbour. The complainant stated there was a group of harbour users who were not happy

with the current situation. The meeting held to clarify issues raised 16 points against the harbour.

Three persons attended the meeting which commenced at 1000 yet two only attended from 1100

and discussed other issues.

Firstly, can one safely conclude that the points raised against

the harbour came from one individual and as yet no other

person has come forwards to support his views?

Secondly – Subsequent to the meeting in question further written

correspondence from the initial complainant has included

accusations of Conflict of interest, Collusion, Coercion, Removal

of privilege for not volunteering, and more latterly stating the

Trust (the complainant’s words) is not a fit and proper body to be

in receipt of public funding and there are concerns which relate to

governance and financial conduct. These are serious allegations.

The two late attendees to the previous meeting should clarify

whether they too are of similar opinion supporting these views. It

is also important to this community that others of similar opinion

make their views known either at this meeting or by

correspondence to an agreed timescale.

If like me you condone these as yet unsubstantiated allegations I

urge you to either speak up now or correspond in writing soonest

with the directors of Eilean Eisdeal.

MM raised his concerns re harbour safety in general and wants

and independent consultant marine specialist to look at the

harbour.

MM spoke about potential insurance claims if there had not been

a proper inspection and health & safety hazards of a mild and

serious nature around the harbour.

Michelle said there was 140K of investment at the time of the

purchase for improvements (eg. corner wall support) etc.

Jenny said the harbour should be restored. EE have to look after

the assets they already have and the proper restoration of the

harbour is a priority.

Jess said the current assets up-keep were the problem.

GL advised that on receipt of MM’s first concerns re Harbour

health and safety the Trust had contacted their insurers re their

responsibilities. GL advised that the Trust had reverted to the

insurers with details of their practice against each of these

responsibilities and that the insurers had advised they had no

concerns. GL also advised that the Trust had been advised that

inspections could be carried out by a “suitably qualified and

experienced person” and that TH was considered such. She also

confirmed that other small islands used the same approach.

GL had confirmed that the Insurers were happy with arrangements undertaken.

GL also suggested that with limited Trust revenue the

community had to utilise experience for checking as they

don’t have money for independent specialists.

MM – Rejected the argument – MOT certificate, insurance

companies wouldn’t pay out and claim wouldn’t hold up. Mike

wants a fully independent report.

GL questioned what the next steps would be if the Harbour was

inspected and deemed so dangerous that repairs would be

prohibitive and the harbour closed.

MM advised that would just have to be the

case. Mike – numerous hazards from mild to

serious

GL asked MM to give an example but he refused stating he had

previously submitted these to the Trust. GL advised he had

received an extensive reply to all matters raised, MM advised

he was not satisfied.

MM then said GL had agreed with him re the need for a Harbour Consultant. GL said this was not

the case but that MM had received a copy of the Draft Harbour Development Plan produced by

the Trust

and agreed actions were included within that. GL explained

however that these actions required significant investment and

could not be actioned overnight.

GL went on to explain the future of the harbour and explained

the draft development plan and the long term commitment of the

Trust to the harbour.

MM then highlighted his concerns re the number of Seafari boats in the Harbour. He asked TH

what Seafari pad for their moorings which Tony responded to, confirming £400 and he had two

moorings. Discussion then took place with some others highlighting what they paid and querying

these figures which TH provided responses to and advised individuals had emails explaining

their fees.

Ruth said she was unhappy about her charges and felt the

increase was steep. Tony explained this was the difference

between summer and winter rates.

Mike asked how much Seafari pays?

Tony made a statement about what Seafari pay as charges;

Mike interrupted Tony's statement stating that he had never been

chairman of EE. Tony instantly apologized withdrawing this

reference. Tony did however state that he had an email from Mike

in his possession requesting Donald Melville to act on behalf of

EE - this email had been sent by Mike Mackenzie.

STATEMENT 2

Seafari Pontoon and harbour charges.

The basic structure for harbour charges was drawn up by

Eilean Eisdeal directors shortly following the purchase of the

harbour. Its structure has only marginally changed although

there has been across the board inflationary increases to

charges.

After harbour improvements in 2004/2005 Seafari corresponded

with Eilean Eisdeal requesting the use of the two moorings

nearest the Rush and Gush for its commercial vessels. Mike

Mackenzie as chair of Eilean Eisdeal appointed Donald Melville

to act on behalf of Eilean Eisdeal. Seafari were granted the use

of both moorings at a cost of 2 x commercial rates.

Circa 2009/2010 with increased pressure for additional boats

and Seafari winning contracts for winter work Seafari approach

Eilean Eisdeal to place, at its own expense, its current pontoon

in the same position as the previous moorings. Eilean Eisdeal

accepted that the provision of a pontoon reduced significantly

the space taken up by two swinging moorings hence allowing

increased space for other vessels.

All mooring equipment and maintenance costs within Easdale harbour is paid for by Eilean Eisdeal.

Harbour dues covering these expenses.Eilean Eisdeal recognised they were not able to provide and maintain a pontoon. At the time of

the harbour purchase a bid for public funding for a pontoon facility for the harbour at a cost of

£90,000 was withdrawn. All costs for this development would have to be met by Seafari which

included the the capital cost of the pontoon and its associated moorings. The annual

maintenance costs for this structure are in the region of £1200 to £1500. The agreement which

stands to this day is that as previous Seafari are charged for two commercial moorings. Seafari

‘s fees are paid timeously.

The basic harbour fee structure of 2005 was drawn up following advice given by Dunbar

harbour trust. Commercial users do enjoy discounts particularly in remote areas. Our vessel

Celtic Voyager heads to the Western Isles next week. Our overnight berth fees will be £10.82

whilst the berthing fee

for the equivalent leisure boat would be £24.20.Commercial users of what many may see as a leisure facility can be controversial. Public

money for this harbour is unlikely to be available for a few leisure users to moor their private

boats. Commercial interest and job creation are high on the list of priorities for grant funding. I

am sure Seafari’s use of the harbour would have been used in the grant application to purchase

the harbour. The claimed boat building business with the creation of two jobs has not

materialised. Whilst there are opportunities for work associated with the harbour it requires

entrepreneurs to grasp the opportunities and deliver on promises of employment. At the height

of the tourist season Seafari employs 17persons locally. This does not include people like

Duncan and Joe who work away from home with Iain. We hope people see our seasonal staff

as contributors the Easdale in general.

The relationship between commercial and leisure use of the

harbour is a balance but it needs to be cooperative and

harmonious. Communication is key.

The points below were not raised at the meeting but Seafari has

requested that this information be included to put the comments

re fees in context.

1. Boats are measured in metres

2. Measurement have been readjusted in line with all

marines i.e. up to but not exceeding a given length no

rounding down

3. Restructuring slowly to payment prior to the season in line with all marinas

4. Utility boats have been more closely defined – no engines above 15hp

5. Fishing boats are to be charged as Commercial Boats

6. Commercial vessels must show their commercial licence to receive the discount rate

7. Boats stored on land owned by EE are now

charged the appropriate rate. EE is not responsible as

to whether the boat is used or not.

8. Approximately 2010 EE introduced a 50% reduction in fees for ferrymen. This continues.

EE accepts in the interest of fairness action is required to deal

with non-payment of harbour dues. Whilst pursuance has been

delayed concentrating on allegations made by one complainant

one is able to report that negotiations with one long term non-

payee has commenced. It will be for EE to negotiate the

compromise but please see this as a success with directors

quietly working behind the scenes. A similar result may not be

forthcoming from other non-payees.

Mike suggested that Seafari did not pay enough for their use of

the harbour considering what the boats were worth.

Jan said Tony had been a great help in improving the harbour to

its current position. There had been inflationary increases only in

the historic fee structure inherited by EE.

Michelle pointed out that when people come into the harbour with

boats, who do they ask about things – Tony and or his Seafari

staff or the ferrymen who are invariably around in the vicinity of

the harbour on a regular basis.

Mike again spoke about an insurance claim being made

because of the state of the harbour and there could be

potential loss of the island assets as a result.

Alan said little had changed in 30 years and there is a level of personal responsibility.

Mike suggested the fees paid by Seafari were a bit low.

DS advised that the harbour fees were commensurate with other small harbours.TH advised that Harbour Fees had not increased significantly and only in line with inflation, since the

harbour was purchased but that all users were advised of the costs.

GL explained that the Trust’s broad commitment to harbour

development was detailed in the Draft Island Development plan .

Community Consultation had been planned for March but

Harbour matters had overtaken this.

Jenny asked what the development plan is and where is it

GL explained process for development plans for Lismore, Luing, Kerrera and Easdale

GL went on to explain difficulty in progressing Easdale’s plans with logistics, everyone works,

difficulty meeting, schedules etc. GL explained that some Boards

had people on them who had bidwriting and project management

experience and they could press ahead with funding applications

etc, others did not.

MM – are you saying that the Board does not have the right skills.

GL advised not and that the LIP was there to support Boards to fill

gaps in capacity-building and asset management.

MM stated that he wanted to record that he is saying, in his

opinion, it was irresponsible to selfregulate and he is going to write

to the authorities to raise his concerns.

GL asked if anyone shared views, William said he shared

views and then left the meeting with no other comment

After revisiting the health & safety issues (Alan) advised no

difference since previous years, quarries without gates, walls

down etc.

MM went on to say that if an independent Consultant came in to

do an assessment of the Harbour, they would agree with him

about the health and safety.

Mike went on to say if he is wrong, he will make an apology to

everyone if they emerge with a clean bill of health.

MM once again advised he was going to contact all

“regulatory authorities” with regard to the Harbour.

GL advised that she had hoped the community could come

together to see how they could make improvements together but

advised MM that it was his right to take forward his contact with

authorities as he saw fit but again highlighted that there would be

consequences to doing this. Discussion then went on about the

level of support Seafari provide to the harbour, harbour users and

the community.

MM stated that the harbour had become a “commercial

harbour” or “Seafari Harbour” and not a community harbour.

GL asked if the question should not be whether the community

were being prevented from using the harbour due to Seafari

presence.

MM stated this is not the question to be asked at all.

Discussion took place between TH and MM and how Tony

helps with mooring but is not harbour master.

Other Board members highlighted the work Seafari do in support

of the community, the harbour and visitors.

MM advised others have done plenty work for the community

too and asked if Seafari wished paid for this, (their community

and voluntary work).

Alex pointed out that MM had not objected to Seafari or TH’s role when he had assisted when MM’s

boat sank.

GL advised that TH acted on behalf of the Trust in relation to the

harbour as once again the Trust did not have the experience and

a member of the community did.

MM then raised the issue of health and safety again but again

would not get into specifics as he said he had already reported

these to the Trust.

DS advised that in relation to the ladders at the harbour (as MM

had raised these as one concern), these had been put up by

individuals with Jan confirming that MM had put one up for her.

DS advised these were not the responsibility of the Trust.

GL made the point that all harbour users were responsible for

their own health and safety and risk assessments and those

who identified “risk” also had the responsibility to mitigate it.

This was reiterated by Iain and Alan.

Alex also pointed out that as a member of the community he

was more concerned about moving forward and not looking

backwards.

At this point GL thanked everyone for their comments. MM

advised he would be taking action with the relevant authorities.

Appendix 3- Letter Mike MacKenzie to EE directors stating his intentionspost public meeting

Duncan SmallmanChair, Eilean EisdealThe Community HallEasdale IslandObanArgyll PA34 4TB

22nd May 2017

Dear Duncan

I am writing as promised to confirm my concerns regarding Easdale Islandharbour which Eilean Eisdeal owns and manages on behalf of the community. Ifirst raised these specific concerns with you in early March this year and gave youa fairly compre-hensive account of these when we met shortly thereafter.

As some of these concerns are serious and fairly urgent it is disappointing that to date you have taken no action to properly address these concerns and that to a certain extent you are still in denial regarding your responsibilities both to Eilean Eisdeal’s members and to the public.

When I was last on the board of Eilean Eisdeal we had a professionally designed and installed moorings scheme in the harbour.We also had an up to date health and safety inspection report of the harbour.

Five years or so ago it appears that this arrangement was completely replaced bya scheme comprising what appear to be sec-ond hand pontoons of indeterminatecondition, without benefit of any professional input either as regards design orinstalla-tion. You have confirmed that there has been no recent health and safetyinspection or audit of the harbour.

In addition the harbour area is very untidy with numerous safety hazards that range, in my opinion, from mild to serious.

You are aware that I recently removed a wooden ladder from the harbour wall which my now long defunct company provided for Jan Fraser many years ago to access her yacht. I do not believe it was my primary responsibility to remove this ladder. I had previously suggested that you urgently deal with this and a number ofthe more immediate and easily dealt with hazards. It was only following your continued denial of responsibility for these that I felt I had to remove the ladder. Inspection of this ladder installed on a 7m high vertical harbour wall revealed how much it had deteriorated and how very dangerous it was. It took less than five minutes to remove it.

The harbour area is frequented by the public as well as boat users. Children often play in the harbour area. There are numer-ous other hazards littering the harbour area both below and above high tide mark. This includes old anchors, numerous lengths of large and heavy surplus scrap chain, which I believe has been used in some cases for moorings, at least one old and appar-ently decrepit ladder still fixedto the harbour wall. The pontoons appear to have sharp and angular metal projections which may be trip hazards as well as presenting other dangers.

There is a boat cradle fixed permanently on the beach on the westerly side of the harbour with sharp angular metal projections and which is used for commercial work and maintenance of boats. This was installed within the last three yearsbut I am una-ware if any permissions (e.g. planning permission was sought in respect of this installation) or if it has been professionally de-signed and installed. It and the activities it seems to be used for appear to me to present a hazard to the public.

The roof has been taken off the bin shed ( which you now seem to refer to as the tractor shed ). The walls on one side of this structure are at ground level. On the other side there is a 2m drop. It is entirely feasible that children could access and walk along the 700mm wide walls and fall. I wrote to you pointing this out in early November last year and yet to date no action has been taken to prevent such an accident.

I am a lay person in these matters and the numerous hazards in what has become a very untidy and neglected harbour area seem obvious to me. This is by no means a comprehensive list.

My most immediate concern is that an accident may result. I have a further concernthat in the event of any third party claim your insurance company will have more than adequate reasons to refuse to represent you. The assets of Eilean Eisdeal, the community hall, the museum and the harbour may all therefore be placed at risk. As we approach the school holidays and the tourist season gets underway all these health and safety risks will increase. It seems to me that you are therefore failing in your duty both to the public and to the membership of Eilean Eisdeal and that there is an urgency in tackling these matters.

Your continual denial of responsibility since I first raised the matter and your recent commitments, only given under pressure, that you will deal with these matters at some unspecified time in the future do not satisfy me as adequate. I have repeatedly suggested that you employ a suitably qualified and independent consultant to urgently advise you in how best to tackle these problems. You have so far declined to do so, apparently on the grounds of cost.

I note that very significant discounts of harbour fees have been given to some harbour users who have or had family members on the board. Had these fee discounts not been given and fair charges been applied to all harbour users I believe that cost would not be an issue, as it perhaps is now.

Some at least of the concerns I have raised could have been dealt with on a voluntary basis by the community long before now.

For these reasons I am now going to raise my concerns with a number of agencieswho I believe will share my concerns and who have the expertise and powers of investigation and compulsion to deal with these issues, as well as other parties who will have an interest in the matter.

Yours sincerely

Mike MacKenzie

Appendix 4 Supporting document Mike Russell and follow up

Mike Russell MSP gave support and contacted the MCA, Marine Scotland and HSE.

On 2 Aug

2017, at 21:47, Tony Hill <seafari_oban@yahoo.co.u> wrote: Part of Mail

Michael

The whole episode has placed considerable stress on the community and particularly the directors of Eilean Eisdeal. Jess and her co directors have concentrated on nothing other than this for the best part of 5/6 months.

The island was just getting back to some semblance of cohesion when these malicious complaints and accusations started.

Eilean eisdael have lost an active director over this and a couple of people who had expressed possible interest to become di-rectors have withdrawn because of what has happened. They will not put themselves in the firing line with these sorts of shots being fired. Can't say I blame them. There is a real possibility Elean Eisdeal may fold at the December AGM. It's chairman moves to Glasgow, another may not restand.

All this just as there was real positive progress to start on organising the restorationof the harbour with HES.

It's really so sad, was totally unnecessary, EE directors have had to spend so much time defending themselves and it has cost the public purse unnecessary expense. I don't follow the logic, i thought there was a drive to support rural parts of Scotland so they remained active and vibrant communities..

Tony

On 8 Aug 2017, at 13:22, Russell MW (Michael), MSP <Michael.Russell.msp@parliament.sco> wrote:

Of course I would be happy to meet with you and the directors and to help if I can. I am asking my office to set that up sometime in September if possible.

Regards

Michael

.

A mutually agreeable time for a meeting has still to be arranged.

Appendix 5 - Eilean Eisdeal's visitor mooring in Easdale Sound

It was claimed and accepted that the original outside mooring was correctly laid by a local dive company. Since it was laid it was rarely if ever inspected by an externaldive company. In general Seafari inspected EE's mooring at no cost when undertak-ing inspection on its own moorings. EE paid for all replacement mooring hardware

The original mooring was laid as a holding mooring for visiting yachts and for yachts with moorings inside Easdale Harbour waiting for the tide. Its design was not that of a permanent mooring. The advice given to EE's directors was to renew the riser chain and associated shackles on a 3 yearly basis. The mooring should beclassified as semi exposed. Should the weather prove poor vessels should be requested to seek shelter elsewhere. The riser chain was due for renewal spring 2017. Over the 3 year period the cost to Eilean Eisdeal was approximately £450 to £500 to include chain, shackles, crown estate fees etc. Funds were recovered by charging visiting yachts staying overnight £10. 20 yacht nights per year was deemed realistic and more than covered expenses incurred.

Following the complainant’s correspondence Eilean Eisdeal took the decision to engage Puffin Divers to inspect, report and carry out all necessary works to the mooring. The riser chain was deemed to be acceptable for a further 12 months vindicating EE's maintenance policy veered towards over cautious. The design of the mooring was altered from a holding mooring to a permanent mooring.

The cost of this inspection and alteration by Puffin Divers was £568.14Due to the alteration of design certain components now require replacement annually committing EE to increased annual costs similar to those of 2017. The riser chain will at some point soon require replacement at some considerable further expense.

It is unlikely this additional cost can be met. Substantially increasing the numberof days the mooring is in use is very unlikely. Substantially increasing the feecharged for using the mooring outside the accepted normal visitor mooringcharges will drive visiting yachts to other locations.

Appendix 6 - Correspondence Eilean Eisdeal’s Insurers

From: Euan Warnoc

Sent: Friday, March 17, 2017 10:21 AM

To: mailto:duncan@easdale.or

Cc: mailto:iain.4crs@blueyonder.co.u

Subject: FW: NFU info re harbour

Dear Duncan

Iain MacDougall has asked me to forward this to you so that you can clearly see the email chain.

I would point out that I have not seen sight of any lease from the Crown Estate commissioners so I have not commented on any obligations imposed thereby.

Regards

Euan

From: iain.4crs@blueyonder.co.u

Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2017 1:33 PM

To: duncan@easdale.or ; jess - trus ; jan@easdale.or ; Michelle MacFadye

Subject: NFU info re harbour

Hi all,

I have spoken to Ewan Warnock and there does not appear to be a fixed set of rules and regulations but see the fol-lowing which is applicable to our harbour moorings inside and out.

1. All moorings should have a design loading capacity.

2. The should be suitable and fit for purpose.

3. Where applicable a max weight limit should be displayed either on the buoy or in written form.

4. Anyone carrying out work on the moorings must be able to demonstrate they are a competent professional per-son and have relevant experience.

5. No professional indemnity insurance is required if the work being carried out isa replacement of existing work providing it is of no lesser weight/design limits.

6. Professional indemnity insurance is required if the contractor is charging a fee for the design or for giving advice on the design

7. No professional indemnity insurance is required if, the professional contractor installs the mooring to their own specification

8. All inspection work should where possible be photographed/filmed, measurements made of any wear normally by micrometer.

9. Adequate records must be kept including test/inspection certificates, photographs/film and any measurements, recommendations certificates and reports.

10. There should also be a safe system of operating the moorings to ensure that no one is allowed to overload the moorings and that any wear and tear or damage is identified throughout the year.

If there are any further questions you have contact me A.S.A.P.

Iain.

Appendix 7 Correspondence Argyll & Bute Council – Councillor Julie MacKenzie

From: DIS Performance HQ <DISPerformanceHQ@argyll-bute.gov.u>Date: 28 September 2017 at 14:53:42 BSTTo: "seafari_oban@yahoo..co.u" <seafari_oban@yahoo.co.u>Cc: "'argyll@messagestore.co.u'" <argyll@messagestore.co.u>Subject: FOI Request argyllbuteir:7479 [OFFICIAL]Classification: OFFICIAL – PART OF MAIL

Dear Mr Hill,

Request for information: Correspondence sent to Mike MacKenzie

Reference: argyllbuteir:7479

I refer to your request for information which was dealt with in terms of the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA).Please see information below in fulfillment of your request.

I have to advise that the information you requested is information not held by the Council and as such I must refuse your re-quest in terms of Section 17 of FOISA.

However, in line with the duty placed on the Council in terms of Section 15 of FOISA, I can advise that Mr MacKenzie contacted his local Councillor rather than approaching the Council directly. It is our understanding that Councillor Julie McKenzie re-sponded to Mr MacKenzie.

Yours sincerely

Ailsa Barr

DIS Performance HQ Team

Response to Councillor Julie Mackenzie

Dear Cllr McKenzie,

I refer to your email of 30/05/2017 regarding the above which has been passed to Pippa Milne for attention by the Chief Executive. In terms of the issues raised I can advise as follows:

1. Health & Safety.

The Council has no responsibility or regulatory control over the health and safety issues associat-ed with the Easdale Harbour area. Legal responsibility rests with the local harbour authority (Eilean Eisdeal) whilst the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) (http://www.hse.gov.uk/contact/ concerns.ht) are the enforcing authority. We have already advised the HSE (local liaison officer) of this issue but it would be useful if the complainants could provide further information to the HSE at the contact above.

2. Boat cradle.

We have no evidence of planning permission having been granted for this structure, although it is possible that such an apparatus might not require planning permission if incidental to the lawful use of the land and also factoring in its degree of permanence and scale. The local planning team are going to visit the site and investigate matters in accordance with the Council's planning en-forcementand monitoring charter. We will advise you further on our findings in due course.

I hope you find this advice and feedback helpful and we will report further as advised.

Regards,

Angus Gilmour

Head of Planning and Regulatory Services

I have also been advised that the planning department has visited the Easdale harbour. Atthe time of their visit no boat cradle was visible. However, their view would be that such astructure would not likely require planning permission. This is because it would appear thatthe structure in question is not permanently fixed to land and its use would be incidentalto the lawful use of land.

If you are dissatisfied with the way in which your request for information has been dealt with you are entitled to request a review by writing to the Executive Director Customer Services, Argyll and Bute Council, Kilmory, Lochgilphead, Argyll PA31 8RT, or by email to foi@argyll-bute.gov.u.

Your request for review must state your name and address for correspondence, specify the request for information to which your request for review relates and why you are dissatisfied with the response.

You must make your request for review not later than 40 working days after the expiry of the 20working day period for response to your initial request by the Council, or not later than

40 working days after the receipt by you of the information provided, any fees notice issued or any notification of refusal or partial refusal.

If you make an application for review and remain dissatisfied with the way in which the re-view has been dealt with you are entitled to make an application to the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kinburn Castle, Doubledykes Road, St Andrews, Fife KY16 9DS (Tel: 01334 46461) for a further review. You can now do this online here -

www.itspublicknowledge.info/Appea.

You must make representation to the Scottish Information Commissioner no later than 6 months after the date of receipt by you of the notice or decision you are dissatisfied with orwithin 6 months of the expiry of the period of 20 working days from receipt by the Coun-cilof your request for review.

Yours sincerely

<image001.png>

Argyll and Bute Council classify the sensitivity of emails according to the Government Security Classi-fications.

Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not theaddressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to suchperson), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any actiontaken or omitted to be taken in reli-ance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.

In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email.Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the officialbusiness of Argyll and Bute Council shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed byit.

All communications sent to or from Argyll and Bute Council may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

This email has been scanned for viruses, vandals and malicious content.

Appendix 8 Correspondence Maritime and Coastguard Agency

Good Afternoon Mr HillThis refers to our telephone conversation on the subject (as detailed in your e-mail 23 July 2017)

As discussed, please be advised MCA’s jurisdiction covers the vessels and their onboard operation only – it does not extend to harbour matters, this remains under the jurisdiction of the HSE and local authorities.

Trust above answers your query.

Regards

M. Kaisar Ali

Marine Surveyor

Glasgow Marine Office, Westpoint Business Park, 1 Marchfield Drive, Paisley PA3 2RB United Kingdom

Tel- +44 (0)203 81 72011 Desk- +44 (0)203 81 72706 Mobile- +44 (0)7909 654302 kaisar.ali@mcga.gov.u ; Glasgow.mo@mcga.gov.u

MCA Duty Surveyor (out of hours and week-end) Telephone number: +44 (0)7810 528 504

Appendix 9 Correspondence from Marine Scotland

Appendix 11: Full email correspondence between Mike Mackenzie and Duncan Smallman (on behalf of Eilean Eisdeal)

Re: Easdale Sound mooring

Tony Hill <seafari_oban@yahoo.co.uk>

6 Mar

to Mike, duncan, jess, Iain, Michelle, Jan

Thanks for your understanding re the mooring in Easdale Sound.

I have passed on your mail to EE.

Tony

Sent from my iPad

On 5 Mar 2017, at 23:33, Mike Mackenzie <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

> Tony

> Many thanks for your e.mail. I note the Trust’s decision which I had anticipated. I can easily make other arrangements for our boat.

> What does give me concern however, is that you seem to suggest that there have been no independent inspections of Trust pontoons, moorings andassociated tackle in recent years. If this is the case it is a serious omission. Just because there have been no incidents to date doesn’t mean that one couldn’t happen at any time and insurers will generally withdraw cover under such circumstances just as they would for a car with no MoT.

> It seems to me that this places the Trust in a very vulnerable position since any claims would be made directly against them rather than be covered by an insurer. The Trust assets including the Hall, Museum etc could therefore be at risk. I very much hope this is not the case and will take up the matter separately with the Trust.

> Notwithstanding your own advice which I am sure is well intended I would urge the Trust to take independent legal advice.

> Best Regards

> Mike

> From: Tony Hill [mailto:seafari_oban@yahoo.co.uk]

> Sent: 05 March 2017 18:15

> To: Mike MacKenzie

> Subject: Easdale Sound mooring

> Mike

>> Thanks for your mail which I circulated to EE directors.

> The directors accept they have responsibilities but to date there have been no issues with regard to either the permanent moorings/pontoons positioned within the confines of Easdale Harbour or with the moorings in the Sound which can be used as visitor moorings. The replacement of chains will proceed as part of routine maintenance but will not be inspected by an outsidecontractor due to the expense. It is felt the additional cost would if passed on directly would put many local boat owners under considerable financial strain.

> Use of the moorings in Easdale Sound - Any visiting yachtsman must demonstrate good seamanlike practices and should not just pick up any old mooring buoy. He has a duty of care to know what he is tied on to. In the event of poor weather a visiting vessel would seek shelter in a harbour, a marina or proceed to sea. A visiting vessel could be requested to immediatelydepart either of EE's visitor moorings. There is a significant difference with a permanent mooring.

> For this reason the directors of EE have come to the decision that they would be unwise to offer either of their moorings for you to use as a permanent mooring. They wish to keep both available as visitor moorings. EE are to review the maximum length of stay on the visitor moorings for vessels considered to be in transit. The new oban Bay transit marina has a maximum stay under discussion at present with current thinking being 3 days only. My advice to EE would they should impose a similar time limit to prevent any implication that either of EE's moorings could be considered permanent.

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 06 March 2017 11:15To: Tony HillCc: Duncan Smallman; jess - trust; Jan Fraser; Michelle MacFadyen; Mike Mackenzie; Iain McDougallSubject: Re: Easdale Sound mooring

Thank you Tony for forwarding Mike's email on to us. The mooring in the sound has previously been independently inspect-ed, and we are looking at options for this year. With regards to the harbour, inspection has been island based and going round checking the condition of the shackles e.t.c with someone who has experience and knowledge of mooring systems.

Mike your concerns will be discussed at the next meeting of the board.

We are always open to advice and appreciate any help that can be given to try to maintain and improve our harbour.

Many thanks

Duncan

From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Date: 6 Mar 2017 12:21 pmSubject: RE: Easdale Sound mooringTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>, "Tony Hill" <seafari_oban@yahoo.co.uk>

Cc: "Duncan Smallman" <duncan@easdale.org>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "Michelle

MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Duncan

Many thanks for responding so promptly. It is very important that all the moorings, pontoons, harbour walls etc are periodi-cally inspected by an independent and suitably qualified person/organisation and that this is fully underpinned by their pro-fessional indemnity insurance. Having it done informally is just not sufficient. Private businesses or individuals can take this risk if they choose to do so but organisations like the Trust just can’t take this risk. In addition the Trust has a duty of care for all harbour users and within the harbour boundaries must make sure that all equipment meets appropriatestandards and if it is privately owned, covered by relevant insurance.

If a claim were to be made, there is a very high chance that your insurers willdecline to represent you and the Trust there-fore may have to meet any claimfrom its own resources. Even a minor claim can easily run to tens of thousands of pounds. My concern is, that with what I understand are slender cash resources, the Trust could easily find itself in the situation where the hall, the museum and other assets are put at risk. Just because there have been no claims made to date does not mean that something unfortunate mayhappen tomorrow.

I was quite shocked toward the end of last summer, when my boat was on the Trust mooring, and Tony e.mailed me to say that it was suitable only for occasional use in good weather. When put down originally it was a very substantial mooring and his warning could only mean that it hadn’t been recently inspected ( by an appropriately qualified and insured contractor) which Tony has since confirmed. I had no alternative at that point but to immediately remove my boat because if the moor-ing were to break and my boat was wrecked my insurers would understandable deny liability for any claim. No one had pre-viously told me the mooring was unsafe. I was told there would be a charge and that there was room for this to be some-thing less than the daily rate. I made prompt payment when requested. I was underthose circumstances entitled to assume that the mooring was fit for purpose and had been periodically and recently inspected.

I appreciate that all this might sound a bit forbidding and directors will be concerned about the cost involved in doing things properly. Fortunately there are public and other funds available to help . Many communities have taken advantage of such funding and now have excellent facilities which are easy tomaintain and can be cost effectively insured. The charges at many of these facilities, both private and privately owned are surprisingly modest.

There seems to me to be no good reason why Easdale should not benefit in similar fashion and why by sharing the costs involved we cannot all benefit from reasonable value for money. Having had the experience I had last summer you will un-derstand why I have been making arrangements for my own private mooring, however, Tony has written to me on several occasions about using a Trust mooring and of course I was happy to discuss this because the principle of us sharing costs seems to me to be a good one rather than us all doing our own thing. As you will know I am keen to support and to help the community having done so for many years. I am not though, willing to be involved in things that are not done properly and in accordance with all due legal and regulatory considerations.

No one is more aware of the difficulties and pressures on Trust directors andI do not wish to sound overly critical but there are standards that you are required to meet under both company and charitable law as well as a responsibility for assets owned by the community which were acquired with public and charitable funding. These are not terribly onerous and are de-signed to prevent the sort of problems which could arise with the harbour being operated in this fashion.

All things considered I don’t see how you can safely keep operating the harbour in the way you appear to have been doing recently. I would urge you not to take my word for this but to seek independent written advice on the matter. This could be from your insurance company, a lawyer with marine experience or perhaps best of all from a suitably qualified marine con-sultant with relevant professional indemnity insurance. A consultant is probably best because you are then indemnified ( i.e. covered by his/her PI insurance) if youfollow their advice and you have been seen to discharge your responsibilities as direc-tors properly and responsibly. You all have both an individual and a collective responsibility to act responsibly on behalf of the community in such matters. Beyond that I would suggest a public meeting to explain such advice as you may receive to is-landers and harbour users.

I am very happy to meet with you to discuss further. You will know that I have a very successful track record in writing fund-ing applications and community development generally and I can see a good way through all of this which could result in much better harbour facilities at reasonable value for everyone.

In the meantime I am going ahead with arranging a private mooring because I do not wish to be accused of having any vested interest in these matters other than as an islander who has the concern for the community at heart. Any help or advice I give you will be offered on a strictly pro-bono basis.

Best Regards

Mike

On 14 Mar 2017 8:55 am, "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

Dear Duncan

I have mentioned to you that I have other areas of concern beyond those I indicated to you in recent e.mails.

Over the last few months a number of islanders have indicated a series of concerns about the Trust. Most of these relate to the operation of the harbour.

These include complaints about charges, allocations and how these are made, heavy handedness and a general air of intimi-dation in how the harbour is administered. There are further complaints of vested interests andconflicts of interest.

Some of these complaints have been made by long standing islanders who are well disposed towards the Trust.

There are suggestions too, that Trust directors have been browbeaten and bounced into making decisions, some of which are questionable.

There has been a long history of complaints against the Trust, the majority ofwhich were spurious. Having had the opportuni-ty to observe the Trust closelyover the last few months it now seems to me that many of these complaintsappear to be credi-ble.

These complaints generally fall within the area of ‘corporate governance’ a matter which is the subject of stringent regula-tion.

I have previously offered to meet the Trust directors informally to give some guidance as to how these problems can be dealt with. I am still willing to do this.

These are serious complaints especially when taken together with my previously indicated concerns. Unless I am assured that the Trust intends to properly and responsibly address these concerns I will have no option but to contact the regulatory authorities.

You should bear in mind that ‘accidental negligence’ is often considered a lesser offence than ‘wilful negligence’. In failing to address these concerns, now that they have been pointed out to you , you may well find yourself placed in the latter category.

If you are not willing to meet with me, can I suggest that you refer the matter to your solicitors. I would be very happy to speak to them with a view to discussing the nature of the various problems and how they can beput to rights.

I will be pleased to receive your response at your earliest convenience.

Yours Sincerely

Mike

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 14 March 2017 09:08To: Mike MackenzieCc: Michelle MacFadyen; Iain McDougall; Jan Fraser; jess - trustSubject: RE: Easdale Sound mooring

Dear Mike,

I hope you are feeling better. I'm sorry we didn't manage to talk through theseissues last week. I'd be happy to talk with you about your and other islanderconcerns this evening and then try and arrange a meeting with as many of thedirectors as pos-sible at a convenient date.

I cannot at the moment comment further on your email and would prefer to address them in person.

Best regards,

Duncan

On 14 Mar 2017 9:26 am, "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

Dear Duncan

Happy to meet. Can I suggest any time after 7.30pm.

Best Regards

Mike

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 16 March 2017 18:19To: Mike MackenzieCc: Jan Fraser; Michelle MacFadyen; Iain McDougallSubject: RE: Easdale Sound mooring

Dear Mike,

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. Thanks for the good chat on Tuesday night. To clarify yours and our position, you have agreed to allowing two weeks for either communication from a legally representative entity stating that we, Eilean Eis-deal have been in contact and have asked for assistance in clarifying our legal duties of provision in the harbour or if we canprovide documentation that shows our understanding of what our legal

requirements are during a meeting between yourself and ourselves in looking towards an agreeable strategy for the future.

As you know, we to want and try and work towards what is best for the island and are saddened that circumstances have reached this stage.

Kind regards,

Duncan

From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Date: 17 Mar 2017 8:08 amSubject: RE: Easdale Sound mooringTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>Cc: "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Duncan

Many thanks for your e-mail. A letter from your lawyers acknowledging the various concerns I have and giving an undertaking to properly address these concerns in reasonable time would satisfy me, at least for the time being. I amhappy to speak to your lawyers on the phone if this would be helpful. Please feel free to copy any or all of my e.mails to them.

You gave an undertaking to meet with me again in ten days or so and I look forward to that.

In the meantime please be assured that as a founding director, I have the best interests of the Trust and of the community at heart and at the heart of my concerns.

Best Regards

Mike

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 23 March 2017 08:09To: Mike MackenzieCc: Michelle MacFadyen; Iain McDougall; Jan Fraser; jess - trust; Gill LawSubject: RE: Easdale harbour & Sound mooring

Dear Mike,

Please find attached our letter in reply to the concerns you have raised after consultation with our insurers. We look forward to your response and continuing working towards securing the future of the harbour.

Best regards,

Duncan Smallman

On 23 Mar 2017 8:15 am, "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

Dear Duncan

Many thanks for your e.mail. I’m afraid there doesn’t appear to be an attachment.

Best Regards

Mike

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 23 March 2017 08:18To: Mike MackenzieCc: jess - trust; Jan Fraser; Gill Law; Michelle MacFadyen; Iain McDougallSubject: RE: Easdale harbour & Sound mooring

Dear Mike,

Yes that would seem it didn't attach, usually helps thank you for letting me know. Sorry for that, here is the letter.

Regards,

Duncan

22nd March 2017

Dear Mike,

The directors have considered the points which you raised in your email, and following formal consideration and review you response is detailed below.

Eilean Eisdeal (EE) is the community development group for Easdale Island, and hasa volunteer committee who are re-sponsible for the administration of the community assets, namely the Hall, the Museum and the Harbour. The harbour was built in the 18th century for the export of slates from the island, and it’s walls are ‘B’ listed. It was purchased for the com-munity in 2005 and is used by small craft belonging to islanders, holiday home owners and visitors in the summer months, and provides a small revenue to EE which helps with the repair and maintenance of moorings. We would be unable to offer this facility without the expert voluntary assistance of some of our members,in particular since 2008, Tony Hill who runs Seafari Adventures, a highly respected and successful RIB tour operator and boatbuilder based on the island.

We recently received your complaint asserting that we have been negligent inour responsibilities regarding the Harbour. Since our liability for the Harbour rests with our insurers, NFU, we have asked them to state exactly what is ex-pected of us. NFU have responded with 10 points, each of which we have addressed below:

1. All moorings should have a design loading capacity

We hold a current licence from Marine Scotland for up to 12 harbour moorings with amax vessel length of 12 metres, and a single holding mooring in the Sound with a max vessel length of 20 metres designated by the Crown Commissioners. The moorings in the harbour are of necessity restricted to small craft since the harbour dries at spring tides. Anyone applying for a harbour mooring for an inappropriately large/heavy boat would be advised against this at the time. One mooring is desig-nated for the use of the Easdale ferry and is maintained by Argyll and Bute Council. One pontoon is owned and maintained by Seafari.

2. They should be suitable and fit for purpose.

The holding mooring in the Sound was laid by North West Marine in 2005 as part ofthe interim improvements to the Har-bour associated with the purchase for the community. The mooring was designed to allow local boats to wait for sufficient tideto enter the harbour. It is also used as a visitor mooring, with appropriate signage on the buoy, and generates a signifi-cant income for EE. It has been professionally inspected most recently in 2013, verified by photos of the mooring and our accounts.Tony Hill voluntarily inspects our mooring annually at the same time as his own moorings, usually late May or early June, and verbally reports on its state and any necessary work needed. It was cleared of kelp and inspected in Spring 2016. It has proven extremely difficult and prohibitively expensive to arrange for an annual professional inspection of a single mooring.

The harbour moorings were installed in 2009 and currently consist of running/swinging moorings and pontoons. After the moorings and pontoon were installed we asked P J Korbel, who was the local Crown Commissioner at that time, to inspect them. He “foresaw no problems arising from the mooring system we have put in place and very much approved of the new arrangements and our wish to effectively organise the harbour for the good of the community and to help ensure its future contribution to the economic welfare of the island. He pointed out that as we own the harbour we have the right to make all decisions pertaining to the harbour, and that those taking up our mooring agreement each year are effectively applying for a berth in the harbour” (30th April 2009).

These extremely sheltered harbour moorings are all visible at low water springsand are relatively easily inspected. Again, Tony has undertaken the bulk of the work and has also instructed other members of the community in the inspection and maintenance of these moorings. The running moorings are dropped in the winter to give a smaller number of swinging moorings. All boatowners are asked to regularly check their moorings and report any problems to EE.

3. Where applicable a max weight should be displayed either on the buoy or in written form.

The weight capacity of the holding mooring (12 tons) has been displayed on the buoy in the past, but we accept that this is no longer legible and needs to be redone. The holding mooring has been dropped until it can be inspected.4. Anyone carrying out work on the moorings must be able to demonstrate that they are a competent professional person and have relevant experience.

There is no doubt that Tony Hill fulfils these criteria. In addition, several islandersand ferrymen are very experienced in mari-time matters and are quick to point outany potential problems and help with the work of harbour maintenance. Themajority of boatowners are also competent people with relevant experience.

5. No professional indemnity insurance is required if the work being carried out is a replacement of existing work provid-ed it is of no lesser weight/design limits.

All maintenance work was replacement, usually of superior quality where funds allowed.

6. Professional indemnity insurance is required if the contractor is charging a fee for the design or for giving advice on the design.

No fees were sought or given apart from professional inspection of the holding mooring.

7. No professional indemnity insurance is required if the professional contractor installs the mooring to their own specifi-cation.

The original holding mooring in the Sound was installed by North West Marine in 2005 as part of the interim improvements to the harbour.

8. All inspection work where possible be photographed/filmed, measurements made of any wear normally by microme-ter.

The holding mooring was professionally inspected in 2013 and photographs are heldby EE. Since then the mooring has been cleaned and inspected annually and we have already this year approved the purchase of some replacement parts. Since the har-bour moorings dry at spring tides, they are more easily inspected and we advise all boat owners to inspect their moorings regu-larly and report any problems to a member of the committee.

9. Adequate records must be kept including test/inspection certificates, photographs/films and any measurements recom-mendations, certificates and reports.

The harbour is on the agenda of every monthly meeting of EE and reports of problems are dealt with as soon as possible. Ex-tracts from the minutes regarding the harbour are available if required. All data from professional inspection is on file.

10. There should be a safe system of operating the moorings to ensure that no-one is allowed to overload the moorings and that any wear and tear or damage is identified throughout the year.

The Harbour is in constant use both by Seafari and the Easdale Island ferry. Seafari crew and ferrymen, many of whom live on the island and keep boats in the harbour, rapidly spot any problems and a quick to help us resolve them. The Harbour is run by the community for the community. Advice on moorings remains the same as thatissued when the mooring were laid in 2009 (although some improvements have been made since then):

SUMMER BERTHS

New moorings have been laid. The three main areas are

Running moorings (Light boats to 5.5 metres)

Fixed boat moorings (Heavier boats to 8 metres)

Pontoon berths

Additional moorings are available by request.

RUNNING MOORINGS These use an endless line and fore and aft clips to enable boats to be secured without swinging. Moorings for permanent resi-dents and regular boat users are closer to theharbour entrance. Part time residents please see notes re pontoon berthing whist you are on the island. Boats are secured bows to the shore, with one clip at bow, and another clip at the stern, starboard side only. The boat should be pulled out to the stop, and both ends of the rope secured to a fixed point on land. When your boat is offits mooring the ropes should still be secured tightly to the shore.

For a demonstration please ask Tony or one of the other running mooring users. Sea.fari can supply suitable U bolts for boats which do not have secure clip points.

FIXED BOAT MOORINGS

These are also secured fore and aft with rising tackle tailored to suit your boat. We will happily discuss details when you move your boat to your allocated mooring. Contact Tony to berth initially. Eilean Eisdeal have agreed to supply additional buoys, rope and clips. Moorings can be used meantime.

PONTOON BERTHS

New cleats have been fitted to allow easier use of the pontoon. Berths 4 and 5 are allocated for use as

Priority to part time residents who are on the island (boats kept on running moorings when not here).

Secondary use by visiting boats/dinghies etc.

STEPS AT THE TOP OF THE FERRY SLIPWAY

These steps are useful for harbour users loading and unloading. This is also the area allocated to visiting boats or dinghies.This area is for short term use only. Please respect this area and return your boat to its allocated mooring.

All Boat Owners should note

All ground tackle and risers have been supplied by Eilean Eisdeal and will betailored to fit your boat. All boats should be ade-quately fendered when moored.Moorings are used at the owner’s risk, and you should inspect your mooringregularly. Please report and problems to concerns to the Jan Fraser, secretary,Eilean Eisdeal (300739)

Eilean Eisdeal

In addition, copies of the Harbour Regulations are available on the EE website. All potential berth holders are required to fill in an Agreement for the Lease of a Berth/Mooring which has to be approved by the committee. Annual Berthing charges invoice letters typically include the words “We inspect and maintain the Harbour moorings annually, but rely on boat owners to check their moorings and report any problems”.

It should be noted that the Harbour has been insured by NFU without question for over 8 years and has never made an insur-ance claim. Our accounts show an expenditure of £784 on maintenance in the past 5 years. This does not include the materials donated by members and friends, and the materials purchased by Seafari inlieu of Harbour fees.

In recent years the harbour has attracted an increasing number of boats and the revenue has increased significantly.

EE approved the installation by Seafari of a drying grid at the top of the harbour which is available to all boat owners.

Seafari has instigated several Harbour clean-up days and community members and Seafari employees have helped to clear de-bris from in and around the Harbour.

At our meeting on the 4th February we recorded that Tony was asked to provide a budget for maintenance of the moorings. At our meeting on 10th March we approved an expenditure of £2,128 for repair and replacement. We plan to carry this out as a community exercise during the low spring tides at the end of March, in preparation for the season.

EE directors feel that clarifying the above points answers the criticisms that have been made. We are always open to constructive comments and welcome input from all of our members.

Yours sincerely,

The Directors of Eilean Eisdeal

On 23 Mar 2017 8:46 am, "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

Dear Duncan

Many thanks for your letter. I’m afraid these explanations do not satisfy me. I accept that they may sound reasonable to some-one who is unacquainted with the harbour and its history and therefore without evidence to the contrary.

Taken together with the accusations of conflicts of interest, questionable policies of berth allocations and preferential mooring rates for some harbour users which I mentioned to you, it is clear to me that the status quo you appear to be defending is unacceptable.

There are further difficulties with regard to the various legalities which bear onthe harbour which I also mentioned to you.

I had suggested that you refer the matter to your solicitors, since, of youradvisors, they should be best placed to form a prop-er appreciation of thenature and seriousness of my concerns. It appears that you are unwilling todo this. I now intend to pass the matter to my solicitor with instructions toadvise the various regulatory authorities of my concerns and to commenceproceedings to establish my personal rights of usage in the harbour. It wouldbe useful if you could forward contact details for your solicitors since it maybe best for mine to write to yours in the first instance.

Best Regards

Mike

From: Duncan Smallman [mailto:drsmallman@gmail.com]Sent: 23 March 2017 08:54To: Mike MackenzieCc: jess - trust; Jan Fraser; Michelle MacFadyen; Gill Law; Iain McDougallSubject: RE: Easdale harbour & Sound mooring

Dear Mike,

I am sorry that you feel that your concerns raised have not been appropriately addressed. As our own conversation was in good faith but between ourselves, it would be more appropriate for a recorded meeting between yourself and the board, for true clarity of your concerns which were

not fully laid out in your initial email. May I suggest an early evening next week?

Best regards,

Duncan

From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Date: 23 Mar 2017 9:28 amSubject: RE: Easdale harbour & Sound mooringTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>

Cc: "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Duncan

Thank you for this invitation which I am afraid I must respectfully decline. Canyou please forward the contact details for your solicitors

Best Regards

Mike

From: "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>Date: 5 Apr 2017 6:37 pmSubject: Concerns araisedTo: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>, "donaldmelville9@gmail.com" <donaldmelville9@gmail.com>, "Keren Cafferty"<kerencafferty@outlook.com>, "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>, "Michelle MacFadyen"<michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>, "Jess - Trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Jan Fraser"<jan@easdale.org>

Hi Mike, once again, thank you for your time on Saturday. As advised I have relayed your concerns as discussed to the Trust Board. Individual Board members have taken on specific areas of investigation, review and collation of materials to provide the Board with the basis of a response to you. As the Harbour has been in community ownership for a significant period this work will take some time. Due to individual availability and commitments, it has not been possible to meet as a group this week but on behalf of the Trust I can advise that a full Board Meeting will take place within the next two weeksand a re-sponse in full will be issued in due course. I hope this is satisfactory. Should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards

Gill From: Gill Law [mailto: glconsultancy25@yahoo.co] Sent: 18 April 2017 14:23To: Mike MackenzieCc: Duncan Smallman; Jess - Trust; Michelle MacFadyen; Jan Fraser; Iain McDougallSubject: Follow up from Easdale Board

Hi Mike, as Duncan and others have been away this weekend, they will have a response to you by the end of the week.

I trust this is satisfactory.

With best regards

Gill

From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.co>Date: 20 Apr 2017 7:16 amSubject: RE: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.co>

Cc: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.co>, "Jess - Trust" <jess@easdale.or>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.or>, "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.or>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.or>

Dear Gill

Apologies for the delay in replying. I am happy to show some good faith and wait for a few days in the hope that this will be reciprocated.

Best Regards

Mike

From: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.co>Date: 20 Apr 2017 7:03 pmSubject: Re: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.co>

Cc: "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.co>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.or>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.or>, "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.or>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.or>

Dear Mike,

I hope you had a nice Easter weekend. Please find attached our letter in reply to the issues you raised during your meeting with Gill.

We look forward to your reply,

best regards,

Duncan

On behalf of the directors of Eilean Eisdeal

Eilean Eisdeal Easdale Island Community Hall

Easdale IslandOban

PA34 4TB

20th April 2017

Dear Mike,

Having now had the chance to convene and discuss the clarified issues concerning the harbour and the broader running of the Trust that you raised by email and through your meeting with Gill Law of the Lorn Islands Partnership, please see the Board’s response detailed below.Like yourself and other residents, the harbour is at the forefront of our thoughts and properly securing and protecting it for the sake of the future of Easdale, with the aim passing it on to future boards in a better state than inherited is an unquestioned priority for the current Directors.We have initiated work on an appropriate Plan for the future of the harbour along with Gill as part of the Lorn Islands Partnership and propose to consult the whole island at a public community meeting on the 13th May, to share our ideas, to listen to what people think and to ensure all know that the maintenance and management of the harbour will always be undertaken with the benefit to the Easdale community in mind.

We, the Board recognises our responsibilities both in relation to due diligence and future-proofing of the harbour for the benefit of the community, visitors and local businesses. A functioning and appropriately maintained harbour is key to the viability of life on the island alongside nurturing the hopes of some islanders to develop or expand their businesses. In the last year the income from the harbour has increased to a level to start helping us to work to achieve the overall aim of a sustainable and resilient island community.

While recognising the challenge of this task, in an environment of reducing public funds and increasing competition for Lottery and other funds, the Boardhas undertaken to commit to the following actions;

1. Seek development funding to undertake an overall appraisal of planned harbour investment needed within a 5 year, 10 year and 20 year period - initialFunders to approach - Awards for All, Heritage Lottery, Comic Relief for Communities, HIE2. Highlight potential investment needs for the protection of Easdale viability to the Local Authority and Highlands and Islands Enterprise3. Develop an integrated Harbour Development Plan aligned to potential Business, Social Enterprise activities and community needs

4. Initiate approaches to the Heritage Lottery, the Coastal Communities Fund and Community Assets in support of harbour investment.

We will also commit to consulting with the community regarding this process and will do our best to do so at regular intervals, with an initial community harbour discussion, planned for the 13th May. As part of these actions we will undertake a long term review of the communities policy and the harbour regulations that are published on the website. Alongside our commitment to the management and protection of the harbour as a key island asset, the upkeep of the hall and our cultural heritage in the museum, we, the Trust Board recognise we can only achieve this with the voluntary support of the community in of these processes and aims. It is hoped our key planned activities and support needs can be discussed in more detail at the community meeting. On behalf of the Board we hope you will be able to attend this meeting and actively contribute to this process.

Yours sincerely,

Duncan Smallman On behalf of the Directors of Eilean Eisdeal

Chair

From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.co>Date: 22 Apr 2017 9:20 amSubject: RE: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.co> Cc: "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.co>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.or>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.or>, "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.or>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.or>

Dear Duncan

Thank you for your letter which is a well- considered response to my concerns. It is a pity that it has taken so long to get to this stage.

I am not completely satisfied with this response, however, in a spirit of good faith, I am content not to take further action at this stage and instead to wait and see how these matters develop.

The following thoughts may assist the directors in their continuing deliberations.

When we first took the lease on the harbour our solicitors, who had a long association with and knowledge of the island were concerned that we were taking on a liability rather than an asset.

Specifically they raised the following concerns,

·That many islanders had long established rights of usage of the harbour and we may have no ability or legal right to charge such people.

·That most title deeds had rights of access written into them which could easily be read to confer a right of access to the har-bour and to keep a boat in the harbour, since this is the only practical access route outwith ferry hours.

·Some islanders had even more specific rights of access. For example when I bought my workshop, the Coalree, I had specific rights to operate construction plant and machinery over ‘all and any part’ of the island and to keep a boat in the harbour written into the title. I did so because we have hada history of island owners whom it was difficult not to fall out with. Chris Nicholson, a previous island owner also reserved a right to keep a Clyde Puffer in the harbour although it seems unlikely that he would now exercise this right, although he has done so in the past. It may be though that he could sell on this right. That would be a matter for lawyers to determine.

· In addition there may be other specific rights or ownerships. For example I

bought a boat and mooring from Dougie Hill, who had bought it from Peter

Fennel, a former owner. Being the owners mooring it was in the best and deepest part of the harbour almost exactly where the Seafari pontoon is now.

The legal arguments regarding my ownership are already well re-hearsed. At one stage when I didn’t have a boat on the mooring Argyll and Bute Council

decided to use it for the ferry. At first they denied my ownership but my lawyersuccessfully pressed the legal arguments and they returned the mooring to

me. When the Trust undertook the initial harbour improvements I was persuaded to relinquish this mooring in favour of a mooring trot with four risers

on the grounds that this would allow much greater use of that deeper area of the harbour. I agreed to this in good faith but I did not pass title or ownership

of the mooring to the Trust and I took steps to ensure that it could not be the subject of what the lawyers refer to as prescriptive acquisition ( i.e. The Trust

would not acquire ownership as a result of usage over time). This was an insurance against a situation arising where the Trust fell into hands that were

not benign and were no longer acting in the community interest.

It seems to me now that the Trust have broken both the letter and the spirit of that agreement. I have conferred with two lawyers recently regarding this issue. Both agree that I am standing on firm ground. One of them has suggested that as well as taking action to re-secure the mooring, I am entitledto sue for compensation equivalent to the usage of the pontoon at cur-rent harbour rates. This is an argument which would have to be made in court but, given my photographic evidence ( see be-low), the sum could be significant.

I should state for the record here that I have no objection to Seafari using this part of the harbour. My objection rests entirely on the grounds that all harbourusers should pay fair and reasonable rates for harbour use. I have photographs over the last few summers showing several large Seafari boats on this pontoon. Nor have I ever been approached by Seafari or anyone else about purchase of this mooring.

There may well be other such private rights of usage of the harbour although Iam unaware of these.

Taking all this into consideration the Trust lawyers advised a cautious approach and we therefore first asked for islanders to pay for the use of the harbour on a voluntary basis because we did not believe that we could reasonably ask funding agencies for large amounts of money ( The initial harbour improvements we implemented were around £80K) without showing a willingness to at least pay something ourselves.

In addition to speaking to our lawyers we also spoke to other organisations who operated harbours. The Dunbar Harbour Trust were particularly helpful.

We consulted the community both about the principle that harbour users should pay and about the charges we suggested, according to a simple and fairly crude formula that aimed to fairly allocate charges. To our surprise there was unanimousagreement at a well attended meeting. Perhaps we shouldn’t have been surprised. Everyone want to see our beautiful old harbour restored and more than anything else it will secure the future of the community. Ignoring it will inevitably lead to the failure of the community, at least in its present form.

There is therefore a more general and long term aspect to the concerns I have raised with the Trust. Things haven’t moved forward in regard to addressing these long term challenges, like the harbour restoration, since we bought the museum over a decade ago. I am not trying to blame anyone for this. The community and the Trust has been through a very difficult time over that same decade, largely dueto some very determined and unethical nimby’s who are no longer with us. Argyll and Bute Council now also has a willingness to be much more helpful than they were and there is a new interest and enthusiasm for supporting infrastructure for marine recreation.

The possibility of successfully renovating the harbour and addressing some other long-standing concerns is much better than it has been.

As commendable as it may seem, the recent approach that seems to have been followed with regard to the harbour, of obtaining cheap second hand equipment and of using volunteer labour and whatever funds can be obtained by charging harbour users is clearly one that is not viable.

A proper approach to renovation and utilisation of the harbour is going to take significant funding. There is though, a considerable amount of work that will have to be done first, in order to build a proper case for this funding and also to make sure that the Trust is a fit and proper body to be the recipient of such funding. Overthe last few months I am sorry to say that with-out particularly looking for it, I have

accumulated a fair amount of written evidence that suggests, beyond doubt, that this is just not the case. You need to be very careful about what you or anyone acting for the Trust puts in writing.

I have no doubt that you can rise to these challenges not least because you areably assisted by Gill. I have met a good num-ber of community developmentprofessionals all over the Highlands and Islands and can say with assurance thatGill is one of the best.

There are a few further points I would make.

·Payment in kind is bound to lead to problems. The spirit in which voluntary work has previously been undertaken is one in which no reward or special privileges are sought. If, for example, Donald Melville was to receive payment in kind for all of the work he has done for the community over the years, he should never have to buy a drink, pay admission fees, and have free usage of all Trust facilities for the rest of his life. Even that wouldn’t be adequate compensation. I have chosen Donald as an example, but there is a long list of individuals who have done huge amounts for this community. If there was to be payment in either cash or kind, other than for very clearly defined roles ( e.g. Museum staff) the Trust may as well shut its doors now.

·There have been complaints of coercion from volunteers, the suggestion being that sanctions may be imposed or privileges withdrawn unless people volunteer for certain community activities. If this is the case, it is clearly unacceptable.

·A number of young islanders have indicated their interest in starting businesses. Seafari also have no proper commercial premises from which to operate on the island. This is a limiting factor and threatens ongoing consolidation and sustainability and ought to be addressed as a priority. We gave an undertaking todo so as part of the case we made for the funding to buy the harbour.

From: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>Date: 1 May 2017 10:26 pmSubject: RE: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Cc: "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Mike,

The Board acknowledges receipt of your most recent correspondence dated 22nd April 2017, has thoroughly considered it and is disappointed to note that once again you have raised further issues with regards to the usage of the Harbour.

Your initial concerns were related to our insurance liabilities and general health and safety concerns. These were responded to in full on 23rd March 2017Your response requested further assurances regarding the Board’s commitment to future-proofing the harbour.

We outlined our plans regarding this in our letter dated 20th April 2017Your most recent communication once again raises your concerns re Seafari using the harbour and your concerns re the charges the Business pays for this. While the Board does not feel it is appropriate to discuss individual harbour users, individuals or Businesses, we can assure you that our schedule for Harbour Fees is published and accessible via the website and updates to harbour users. The Board can confirm, with the permission of Seafari, that they pay commercial rates for the use of the harbour and that these payments are up to date.With regard to your concern re the mooring you state you have continued ownership of, your understanding differs from that of Eilean Eisdeal and as such, should you wish to pursue this, we will respond as appropriate.Your letter however, raises some additional allegations that the Board would want to be able to investigate further, specifically, “there have been complaints of coercion from volunteers”. This is a very serious allegation and one the Board is unaware of. You also state that “sanctions may be imposed or privileges withdrawn unless people volunteer for certain community activities”. Again, these are very serious allegations that the Board cannot ignore. Consequently, we would appreciate it if you could forward the specific details prior to the meeting on the 13th of May so that the Board has the opportunity to investigate and provide a response to the community.In response to your concerns re the long-term development of the Harbour, Eilean Eisdeal has a Draft Harbour Development Plan incorporating a targeted Funding Strategy which the Board has previously advised is to be discussed at a public Community Meeting on Saturday 13th May.In the interests of transparency and community-based decision-making, all issues raised to date with regard to the harbour will also be offered for further discussion at this event so that community concernscan be appraised and documented.In the interim, the Board feels that it would be inappropriate to comment further given the level of response that has already been provided.

Your sincerely

Directors of Eilean Eisdeal

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Date: 1 May 2017 11:11 pmSubject: RE: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>Cc: "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Duncan This is a disappointing response. I think it is now time that I present the evidence I hold and the concerns I have to the various regulatory agencies involved. It also seems inevitable that we must test the matter of my ownership of the mooring in question in court. In order to expedite this I would again request that you forward the address of your solicitors. Part of my reason for this is that I am unaware of any letterbox or mailbox in the Community Hall to which formal correspondence can be delivered. I would also be obliged if you can forward an up to date copy of your register of members. Could you please check this to make sure it is up to date as my understanding is that some former members may have ‘fallen off’ the register. Yours Sincerely Mike

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>Date: 5 May 2017 8:50 amSubject: RE: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>Cc: "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Duncan On an entirely different matter, a number of islanders have suggested that we ought to have an island clean up and that they would be willing to contribute towards costs. In the past the Trust used to organise and pay for Shane Cadzow to bring his big trailer across once a year or so and we never had any problem filling it. I would be very happy to make a contribution to costs. Is this something the Trust could organise? Best Regards

---------- Forwarded message ----------From: "Duncan Smallman" <drsmallman@gmail.com>Date: 5 May 2017 9:22 amSubject: Re: Follow up from Easdale BoardTo: "Mike Mackenzie" <coalree@zoho.com>

Cc: "Jan Fraser" <jan@easdale.org>, "jess - trust" <jess@easdale.org>, "Gill Law" <glconsultancy25@yahoo.com>, "Michelle MacFadyen" <michelle@easdale.org>, "Iain McDougall" <iain@easdale.org>

Dear Mike,

I have also heard this idea mooted, especially with the success of previous island clean ups, especially around the harbour, which Tony has helped coordinate in the recent past. I know last year you had a trailer that you kindly offered for other people to dispose of large items with and despite a slight miscommunication with the council, was disposed of.

My understanding was that in the past the council would provide a skip once a year (or even twice a year once upon a time) for the removal of large items. However this has not been the case for many years.It is a great idea, one that will be put forward at the meeting next week. Then we can move forward as appropriate.

Thanks for putting forward the suggestion,

Duncan

On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 9:50 AM, Mike Mackenzie <coalree@zoho.com> wrote:

Dear DuncanGill Law, who freely admitted she knows nothing about harbours, asked at last Saturday’s meeting if I would provide a formal list of my health and safety concerns regarding the harbour.I have not done so until now to give the Trust the opportunity of at least addressing the moreserious and urgent of these issues in a responsible manner. My own risk assessment suggested that an accident was unlikely so long as the more serious matters were dealt with within a few weeks. Time is always the essence in these matters. The longer hazards are left unattended the greater the risk that there will be an accident. I am therefore disappointed that despite giving you a verbal and fairly comprehensive list of these concerns when we met several weeks ago in my house you have not taken action on any of them. Indeed your continuing attitude seems to be a denial of responsibility. The matter has now become more urgent because of the greater use of the harbour area we will see as the tourist season gets underway.I will therefore on Monday morning provide you with a written list of my concerns. At the same time I will send copies of this to HSE, MCA, Argyll and Bute Council, and to your insurers. At that point I fear that Alan MacFadyen may be correct in that the harbour will be effectively shut down. I imagine these agencies will act fairly quickly.Notwithstanding this as I have previously said there could be a good and inexpensive solutionto these problems and I am quite confident that such a solution can be fairly easily implemented.My suggestion to you, since neither yourself, any of the board members, or Gill know much, ifanything about harbours, is to set up a short life sub-committee to urgently consider and report back to you on how best to address these concerns. I would suggest that the membersof this committee should be myself, Tony Hill and Alan MacFadyen and that the committee report back to the Trust with an action plan within 48 hours.

Tony, Alan and I are undoubtedly the people within the community most qualified to give youadvice with the added benefit that there will be no expense involved. If you agree to this thenyou will have demonstrated your good faith in accepting responsibility for these problems. There is therefore only one further condition and that is, that Tony agrees that Seafari pay a fair and reasonable amount to the Trust for their use of the harbour. Tony will have a much better idea of what this should be than I do.Most of you will not be aware of how hazardous our harbour is. I can remember one fatality and one near fatality. At the time of the fatality, Alan’s dad and I discovered the body.If I do not have your unequivocal agreement to the above proposition by Monday morning then I will forward my list of concerns to yourselves and the agencies noted above. Please keep any reply short and to the point. There is neither room nor time for negotiation.Please note that I am copying this to Alan and Tony.Best RegardsMike

Dear Duncan Many thanks. The suggestion was made in good faith in a last ditch attempt to deal effectively with the mess you have got yourselves into. Tony’s assertion at the recent meeting that he was not and never has been the ‘harbour master’ surprised me. Whether this is true or not I have heard from more than one director that Tony was your resident expert and you relied heavily on his assistance and advice. Having therefore helped get you into these difficulties I had assumed that he would feel a degree of responsibility in helping get you out of them. I have no problem or antipathy towards Tony or anyone else and would have been pleased to work with him. I will be in touch shortly regarding the action I will now be taking. Best Regards Mike

Mike Mackenzie <coalree@zoho.com>AttachmentsMay 22

to Duncan, Duncan, jess, jan, Iain, Alan, tony, Gill, me Dear Duncan Please see attached letter which I am also copying to a number of agencies and interested parties. This covers the most urgent of the issues I am concerned with. Iwill deal with the others in due course. Best Regards Mike